I accept it. I already said it. I'm starting to think you have a certain inability in reading, although you can write.
I'm not angry. I'm tired. It's 1000 times worse.
It's unfortunate that you have to deresponsibilize yourself when you don't like something. You just choose to turn the other way. I'm afraid you have no real grasp of what a democracy means, and what maturity means.
Take, for instance, the way you handle people who dislike your baseless opinions (since there's no fact to support them). Take, for example, your signature inviting people to ignore you. This must be, of course, because lots of people are disgusted by what you write, otherwise you'd have no reason to have such a signature (unless you consider strong opinions based on weak facts a good reason. Just don't ask for examples, this might really hurt you in this forum, although you wouldn't feel ashamed, sadly).
Yet you reverse the logic and put the burden of your words on others, asking them to ignore you. You're excluding yourself from society, giving people the hassle to control your words since you can't do it yourself. You INVITE people to do so, then you wonder why you're treated in such a way. Well, surprise, a forum is a place where you share your opinions with others, not your indifference.
Moreover, maturity comes from accepting the responsibility of your actions. For instance, by calling you an idiot I accept the responsibility of conducting a personal attack, although such attack could be deeply grounded in a set of well known facts, or hard evidence. You can't accept those responsibilities, and you demand others to do the job for you. In this you're no more than an additional burden.
And by answering to your Nth, pathetic attempt of steering something you don't like into irrilevance I accept the responsibility of steering a thread that may interest someone else off-topic, thus breaking once again the rules of the forum.
Unluckily in this case, I'm not you. I have a different set of rules. If I had yours, since you've demonstrated your utter lack of maturity (with your own words, too!) I'd just dispose of you. I cannot. I care, even for those who have a disgusting behaviour. That's a form of protection you benefit from. It's part of my perceived maturity. Don't abuse it, or I may start thinking like you, and this would be far from a huge step for humanity.
It's unfortunate that you have to deresponsibilize yourself when you don't like something. You just choose to turn the other way. I'm afraid you have no real grasp of what a democracy means, and what maturity means.
Take, for instance, the way you handle people who dislike your baseless opinions (since there's no fact to support them). Take, for example, your signature inviting people to ignore you. This must be, of course, because lots of people are disgusted by what you write, otherwise you'd have no reason to have such a signature (unless you consider strong opinions based on weak facts a good reason. Just don't ask for examples, this might really hurt you in this forum, although you wouldn't feel ashamed, sadly).
Yet you reverse the logic and put the burden of your words on others, asking them to ignore you. You're excluding yourself from society, giving people the hassle to control your words since you can't do it yourself. You INVITE people to do so, then you wonder why you're treated in such a way. Well, surprise, a forum is a place where you share your opinions with others, not your indifference.
Moreover, maturity comes from accepting the responsibility of your actions. For instance, by calling you an idiot I accept the responsibility of conducting a personal attack, although such attack could be deeply grounded in a set of well known facts, or hard evidence. You can't accept those responsibilities, and you demand others to do the job for you. In this you're no more than an additional burden.
And by answering to your Nth, pathetic attempt of steering something you don't like into irrilevance I accept the responsibility of steering a thread that may interest someone else off-topic, thus breaking once again the rules of the forum.
Unluckily in this case, I'm not you. I have a different set of rules. If I had yours, since you've demonstrated your utter lack of maturity (with your own words, too!) I'd just dispose of you. I cannot. I care, even for those who have a disgusting behaviour. That's a form of protection you benefit from. It's part of my perceived maturity. Don't abuse it, or I may start thinking like you, and this would be far from a huge step for humanity.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Wikipedia suffices:
History
"Idiot" was originally created to refer to people who were overly concerned with their own self-interest and ignored the needs of the community. Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.
So you're an idiot if you choose not to care, or if you're unable to. You've had your answer, now think about it and come back when you want to care.
History
"Idiot" was originally created to refer to people who were overly concerned with their own self-interest and ignored the needs of the community. Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.
So you're an idiot if you choose not to care, or if you're unable to. You've had your answer, now think about it and come back when you want to care.
Certainly I know more on the subject than you do. Welcome to the real world, W4H. Don't forget to do a reality check from time to time, it might help you stay alive.
And stop trolling. Just go away. Mature conversations are not made for you.
And stop trolling. Just go away. Mature conversations are not made for you.
Idiots don't care, for sure. They are unaware, and much likely to be victims of people like these.
It depends from the level of professionalism and the ethical bounds of your profession. If it was an association of psychiatrists instead of psychologists, it would have been an utterly stupid discussion. Not that I have a better opinion of a particular group of professionals, it's just that psychologists have different (much more lax) ethical bounds.
The APA is considering to bar its associates from participating in interrogations because the methods are considered questionable by APA itself. This article from Salon explains why we have to see this discussion as a step forward, not behind.
Yes, it could be. Download the latest version, or check again here if the version you use is supported by the new master server or not.
You may manually give access to LFS.exe (if it applies) via Control Panel. This page has general hints about Windows Firewall. The section about applications applies also to LFS.
You may manually give access to LFS.exe (if it applies) via Control Panel. This page has general hints about Windows Firewall. The section about applications applies also to LFS.
If pings and traceroutes are successful, first check your firewall (especially Windows Firewall or some other personal firewall), it might be preventing LFS.exe connection to the master.
Honestly, I don't think this is a good idea.
Updates are an important part of your operating system. They just don't fix (important) security holes, they also repair major flaws. True, some of them may be unneeded and some of them may even cause a computer to malfunction under specific circumstances, but these cases are quite rare. So turning them off is generally not a good idea, unless you constantly check manually for updates.
The best way, for me, is in the middle: configure Windows to automatically notify (or even download, to save time) updates, and always install them manually revising the list. Uncheck unwanted (for whatever reason) updates and, if you wish, ask to be no longer notified about them. You can always retrieve no longer notified updates manually via the Windows (Microsoft) Update web site. Then install the wanted ones. If a reboot is asked, do it as soon as you can.
Edit: Microsoft proposes - at least in Italian versions - an automatic install at 3.00 AM of updates as default for XP. This is far from being the best default possible: your computer has to be on at 3.00 AM, and it can have an unattended reboot, and this may cause some unwanted task disruptions. It's a good idea to change it.
Last edited by Albieg, .
I'm afraid you can't, older versions may have a hardcoded call to the old master server. More explanations in the first posts of this thread. Moreover older versions are now unsupported.
The only way to do it, maybe, would be rewriting the master server address in some way, and that task, however you may try to do it, isn't completely trivial.
The only way to do it, maybe, would be rewriting the master server address in some way, and that task, however you may try to do it, isn't completely trivial.
The only way to "disable" it in your case would be using an additional board, an AGP graphic card coming with its own integrated RAM.
When I was 18 I ruined an Amnesty International meeting at school because I was a strong supporter of capital punishment and I intervened to defend it, but not long after that meeting I started to think about it to discuss my own positions, and I discovered that I had no good reason whatsoever to support them. It was a saddening moment, a huge achievement and part of a continous process.
It's expensive in emotional terms, but I'm convinced it's worth it.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Reason : Typos, typos. And again typos :)
Actually you can compare them, and the first thing you have to notice is that ME is a successor to 95 while XP is a successor to NT. You can make a side by side comparison and understand - instantly - which OS is losing by design.
This leaves another question open: which OS is better in its implementation, and once again we have to agree that NT - when working - does a better overall job than 95.
Third we have to see which OS can be more easily troubleshooted in case of problems. Once again NT beats 95 blue.
Then we have to think about third party support and developed software. Ten years ago 95 had more application and more third party support for the domestic market, for which 95 was designed.
Then Microsoft decided that XP would have been the product in which both the domestic and the professional market should converge, although in slightly different versions. ME was the last OS to belong to the family of windows 95, and it was crap. 2000, originally aimed at the professional market was considerably better and widely adopted even in the domestic market.
So you may be right saying you can't compare ME to 2000 since they have a completely different internal structure, but years ago you had think about comparing ME to 2000 if you thought about upgrading your PC or buying a new one. You had to make a comparison, and given the amount of support for Windows 98 choosing Windows 2000 should have looked like a hazard, while it was rather the best choice.
But now, luckily, Microsoft has decided we only have to deal with different versions of OSes that share a very similar internal structure. So far, it has been a wise move.
Edit: sorry, the comparison was originally between ME and XP, not 2000. Anyway I can't find so many really important differences in XP and 2000, apart from some differences in management, bells and whistles and some general upkeep.
Last edited by Albieg, .
You're wrong about this. It should be pretty clear now that I believe that supporting death penalty suppresses part of my perceived humanity, so I refuse it totally. I offer this refusal as the absolute guarantee that I won't kill anyone just because he has different opinions.
Well, I'm no vegetarian
This issue (dehumanisation) has been debated widely in the previous page. For the sake of my humanity I prefer to accept the responsibility of having to deal with another human being, no matter how hideous his/her nature may be.
Edit: with nature, in this case, I mean "disposition".
mrodgers, those who oppose death penalty don't do it on a case per case basis. All of your post refers to thoughts that might interest people who support death penalty. You say each situation is different, but when it comes to capital punishment for those who oppose it each situation is equal, and the answer is always "no".
I understood this was a possibility, but you know, sometimes you just have to raise an eyebrow
It all depends on who's willing to throw away the rights of the victim, and we know it's a criminal, and who's willing to throw away the rights of a criminal, if we're discussing about right to life. I'm not willing to do either of the two, and so is the European Union, which makes the abolition of capital punishment a prerequisite for entering States. Besides that it's quite easy to see why States separate their collective will from what a single citizen would like, whether these States apply death penalty or not, so the "me" point of view is irrelevant and has to be substituted by the "we the people" point of view.
I, for once, know for sure I'd be willing to kill someone with my own hands in certain circumstances, but I also know I have to repress it and live with the ugly sensation of seeing my bloodthirst forever unsatisfied. That's because I refuse the utilitarian positions defining a human life - whoever it is - as useless ballast, or as the life of an animal which has to be suppressed. I refuse to see life from a productive point of view. Moreover I'm unwilling to dehumanise someone just because he dehumanised someone else.
Dehumanisation is the key here, it removes the responsibility of having to deal with another human being. This mechanism has been used countless times to justify the most horrendous crimes. I can't understand why I would have to resort to something that would deny - first of all - my humanity. The first one losing something would be me. But allow me to hope to never have to prove my determination in this case.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Reason : Removed some typos. Not all of 'em.
Okay, Vista is a better choice for a new machine. Xaotik's post may explain it with a lot of bitter (and good quality
) humour, but he's spot on. Preinstalled OEM XP machines are increasingly hard to find, XP has already had (possibly) the longest life cycle of every Microsoft product, there has been a lot of hype about Vista and you can expect harder pushes to shove this OS down the throat of unwilling people, considering sales aren't up to expectations at the moment. This won't happen anytime soon, but in a few months Vista will be your only choice. My advice would be to stick with XP until you're forced to upgrade if you have an old machine, and start with Vista if you buy a new machine.I know this sucks, but that's the way most software vendors work. And although I dislike some of the intrusive things in Vista it isn't a bad OS, certainly not worse than XP, and not worse than 2000. All things considered, they all share their NT ancestor.
And I wrote what I wrote (disregarding the fact that I stated I won't participate any more in this thread, for reasons that should be quite obvious) to state that an admin who drives has a conflict of interests and it's bound to be error prone, certainly more than an admin who doesn't race. But these are things you know very well since you dislike the practice. Besides that your words seem to confirm my interpretation.
Edit: this means that putting the burden of a mistake only on racers just because racers use to think about themselves as infallible beings is wrong. Even admins aren't infallible, and so are racing admins. I agree with most of what you said, but I am always willing to listen to someone to see what he has to say. And I listen to the other part and I make up my mind, just like anybody else does. Or at least, I hope so.
Edit: this means that putting the burden of a mistake only on racers just because racers use to think about themselves as infallible beings is wrong. Even admins aren't infallible, and so are racing admins. I agree with most of what you said, but I am always willing to listen to someone to see what he has to say. And I listen to the other part and I make up my mind, just like anybody else does. Or at least, I hope so.
Last edited by Albieg, .
Funny you should quote what you like disregarding the fact that she's totally against racing admins, or, to put it better, racing drivers who administer servers.
Last edited by Albieg, .
That's really weird. A ping on master.liveforspeed.net should be on the right IP address if there's no hosts entry. The old IP address must be taken from somewhere, and it must be from hosts file or dns searches. I'm afraid that, apart from double checking the hosts file (scrolling it down to be sure there is no blank space with additional entries at the end), I have nothing else to suggest.
Edit: Try to issue, also from command prompt, an ipconfig /displaydns |more. This displays the entries of the dns cache, one page at a time. Take note of the IP address of master.liveforspeed.net. Then issue an ipconfig /flushdns to clear cache, and try pinging master.liveforspeed.net again. Then issue an ipconfig /displaydns |more again and see if the IP address is different.
Edit: Try to issue, also from command prompt, an ipconfig /displaydns |more. This displays the entries of the dns cache, one page at a time. Take note of the IP address of master.liveforspeed.net. Then issue an ipconfig /flushdns to clear cache, and try pinging master.liveforspeed.net again. Then issue an ipconfig /displaydns |more again and see if the IP address is different.
Last edited by Albieg, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG